Proposed Pitch roof over first floor bay – retrospective

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 May 2019 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:31st May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/19/3224071 7 Millway, Mill Hill, London, NW7 3QR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Harpreet Gill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 18/6370/RCU, dated 23 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2018. • The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed Pitch roof over first floor bay – retrospective’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The development applied for has already been carried out. 3. Subsequent to the date of the Council’s decision, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having considered the role and content of revisions, I do not consider it necessary to re-consult the main parties about this change in national policy in relation to this case. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the street scene. Reasons 5. The appeal building is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings that is situated in a predominantly residential area that comprises houses of various sizes and styles. Despite this variety, the appeal building sits within a small continuous group of houses along Millway that share a number of distinctive features. These include steep untouched hipped roof planes, central chimney stacks and vertically aligning ground and first floor bay windows with flat roofs. All of these combine to provide simple and uniformed frontages. 6. On my site visit I noted that the character of this group of houses has been slightly diluted by the construction works that are taking place on the appeal building’s roof under planning permission Ref: 16/2874/192. These roof alterations have also resulted in an unbalanced relationship between No 7 and the adjoining property. 7. However, the introduction of the pitched roof above the first floor bay window and the eaves line of No 7 adds visual bulk to the façade and the front roof Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3224071 2 plane. Although it is of modest size and scale it appears as a prominent, raised, conspicuous feature that detracts from the simple composition of the appeal dwelling and disrupts the uniformity of the neighbouring group of houses that it sits within. The incompatibility of the development is clearly apparent along Millway. 8. The appellant has referred me to examples of other dwellings in the area that have varying roof forms, and pitched roofs above front bay windows. However, the majority of these dwellings are different house types to the appeal building and are not located within a group of similar houses. Accordingly, their circumstances are not directly comparable with those which apply in this appeal. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own planning merits. 9. I therefore find that that development has a materially harmful effect on the street scene. It therefore conflicts with London Plan Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6; Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2012; and Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) 2012. Amongst other things, these require that all development should respect local context and distinctive local character in creating places and buildings of high quality design. Other matters 10. In reaching my findings I recognise that the Council does not consider the development to cause any harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of light, outlook or privacy. I am also aware that No 7 is not listed or located in a conservation area and that no letters of objection from local residents have been received. It has also been put to me that the flat roof above the first floor bay window collected rainwater runoff which would have led to internal damp and structural problems to the detriment of the wellbeing of existing and future occupants of the appeal property. The appellant contends that the development thereby maintains and improves the quality and condition of London’s housing stock. However, there are other less obtrusive means available to the appellant to avoid damp. I therefore do not consider these factors to overcome or outweigh the harm that I have identified above. 11. I have also attached substantial weight to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and have taken into account the appellant’s reference to other sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, there is nothing substantive before me to suggest that the Council does not have an up-to-date development plan or that its policies are not consistent with the objectives of the Framework. In any case, the Framework advises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and places an emphasis on ensuring that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. For the reasons provided above I do not consider that the development satisfactorily addresses these requirements. As a result, it therefore does not achieve sustainable development. 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal should therefore be dismissed. Mark Caine INSPECTOR